METHODS: The SB and MPTD activities were performed by seven nurses on a simulated patient. The nurses' facial expressions were recorded during the trial. The NASA Task Load Index and technology acceptance questionnaire were also assessed.
RESULTS: The MPTD significantly reduced the mean overall NASA-TLX score by 68.7% (p = 0.004) and increased the overall acceptance score (median = 8.30) by 21.2% (p = 0.016) when compared to the SB (median = 6.85). All the subjects reported positive feelings towards MPTD. However, facial expression analysis showed that the nurses had a significantly higher peak density of fear while using MPTD (p = 0.016). Besides, there was no improvement in the negative valence and contempt emotion compared to the SB.
CONCLUSION: Overall, nurses showed positive perceptions and acceptance of MPTD even when they experienced negative emotions.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONThe Motorised Patient Transfer Device (MPTD) reduced the perceived workload of nurses and showed a higher acceptance level compared to the commonly used baseline device (SB).Factors that attributed to the nurses' negative emotions can be used to improve technology and patient transfer processes.More training should be given to familiarise the health practitioners with the new assistive device to reduce their fear of technology.
METHODS: The study was conducted among second-year dental students in a dental materials science class, during which students participated in a mock assessment that included extended matching questions (EMQs) and single correct answer (SCA) questions. An online questionnaire comprising three sections: demographic information, Honey and Mumford's Learning Styles Questionnaire, and 15 closed-ended questionnaire items employing a 5-point Likert scale were administered to assess students' perceptions of the assessment methods. Statistical analyses were conducted using the Kruskal-Wallis test, Mann-Whitney U test, and a post-hoc Bonferroni test.
RESULTS: All 70 students participated in the study with the majority being female, Chinese, and activist learners. Median total scores among various learning styles, gender, and ethnicity did not exhibit significant differences. Analysis of individual questionnaire items revealed mixed perceptions regarding EMQs. Reflectors generally held more positive perceptions of EMQs, while theorists showed the lowest total median scores toward EMQs. Most students did not prefer EMQs over SCAs, and some students expressed confusion about EMQs, especially those with a theorist learning style.
CONCLUSION: Although students generally showed good perceptions towards these assessment methods, further research is needed to better understand the interplay of learning styles, assessment preferences, and educational outcomes in dental education.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The module was developed based on the ADDIE (Analyse, Design, Develop, Implement, Evaluate) model. First, a need analysis was conducted, followed by designing the module to address the needs. Next, the module sought experts' feedback and was piloted. The revised module was implemented among all second-year undergraduate dental students. Finally, a validated questionnaire (5-point Likert scale items and open-ended questions) was used to evaluate students' learning experiences. The questionnaire Likert scale items were analysed descriptively, whereas open-ended responses were analysed using content analysis.
RESULTS: In the analysis phase, a slight misalignment in cognitive competency levels was observed, alongside a need for the inclusion of more hands-on activities. In the design phase, learning objectives and resources were listed. Subsequently, a module consisting of four teaching sessions (3 h each) was developed, and the pilot test showed favourable feedback. The module was then implemented in small groups of 10-12 students. In the evaluation phase, 72 students (97% response rate) completed the questionnaire. The majority of students agreed with all items, with mean scores ranging from 4.53 to 4.72. Open-ended responses highlighted that hands-on activities and reflective feedback sessions were useful.
CONCLUSION: Students demonstrated positive learning experiences after participating in the module, advocating for dental educators to consider more hands-on activities and reflective feedback sessions in teaching dental materials science.
SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Collaborators from the International Society of Nephrology (ISN), Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study and ISN-Global Kidney Health Atlas developed an online survey that was administered electronically to key nephrology leaders in 174 countries between 2 July and 4 August 2021.
RESULTS: Survey responses were received from 99 of 174 countries from all 10 ISN regions, among which 88/174 (50%) were complete. At least one vaccine was available in 96/99 (97%) countries. In 71% of the countries surveyed, patients on dialysis were prioritised for vaccination, followed by patients living with a kidney transplant (KT) (62%) and stage 4/5 CKD (51%). Healthcare workers were the most common high priority group for vaccination. At least 50% of patients receiving in-centre haemodialysis, peritoneal dialysis or KT were estimated to have completed vaccination at the time of the survey in 55%, 64% and 51% of countries, respectively. At least 50% of patients in all three patient groups had been vaccinated in >70% of high-income countries and in 100% of respondent countries in Western Europe.The most common barriers to vaccination of patients were vaccine hesitancy (74%), vaccine shortages (61%) and mass vaccine distribution challenges (48%). These were reported more in low-income and lower middle-income countries compared with high-income countries.
CONCLUSION: Patients with advanced CKD or KFRT were prioritised in COVID-19 vaccination in most countries. Multiple barriers led to substantial variability in the successful achievement of COVID-19 vaccination across the world, with high-income countries achieving the most access and success.
METHODS: Patients having migraine for more than six months attending the Neurology Clinic, Hospital Universiti Sains Malaysia, Kubang Kerian, Kelantan, Malaysia, were recruited. Standard forward and back translation procedures were used to translate and adapt the MIDAS questionnaire to produce the Bahasa Melayu version. The translated Malay version was tested for face and content validity. Validity and reliability testing were further conducted with 100 migraine patients (1st administration) followed by a retesting session 21 days later (2nd administration).
RESULTS: A total of 100 patients between 15 and 60 years of age were recruited. The majority of the patients were single (66%) and students (46%). Cronbach's alpha values were 0.84 (1st administration) and 0.80 (2nd administration). The test-retest reliability for the total MIDAS score was 0.73, indicating that the MIDAS-M questionnaire is stable; for the five disability questions, the test-retest values ranged from 0.77 to 0.87.
CONCLUSION: The MIDAS-M questionnaire is comparable with the original English version in terms of validity and reliability and may be used for the assessment of migraine in clinical settings.